386.510. Within thirty days after the application for arehearing is denied, or, if the application is granted, thenwithin thirty days after the rendition of the decision onrehearing, the applicant may apply to the circuit court of thecounty where the hearing was held or in which the commission hasits principal office for a writ of certiorari or review (hereinreferred to as a writ of review) for the purpose of having thereasonableness or lawfulness of the original order or decision orthe order or decision on rehearing inquired into or determined.The writ shall be made returnable not later than thirty daysafter the date of the issuance thereof, and shall direct thecommission to certify its record in the case to the court. Onthe return day the cause shall be heard by the circuit court,unless for a good cause shown the same be continued. No new oradditional evidence may be introduced upon the hearing in thecircuit court but the cause shall be heard by the court withoutthe intervention of a jury on the evidence and exhibitsintroduced before the commission and certified to by it. Thecommission and each party to the action or proceeding before thecommission shall have the right to appear in the reviewproceedings. Upon the hearing the circuit court shall enterjudgment either affirming or setting aside the order of thecommission under review. In case the order is reversed by reasonof the commission failing to receive testimony properlyproffered, the court shall remand the cause to the commission,with instructions to receive the testimony so proffered andrejected, and enter a new order based upon the evidencetheretofore taken, and such as it is directed to receive. Thecourt may, in its discretion, remand any cause which is reversedby it to the commission for further action. No court in thisstate, except the circuit courts to the extent herein specifiedand the supreme court or the court of appeals on appeal, shallhave jurisdiction to review, reverse, correct or annul any orderor decision of the commission or to suspend or delay theexecuting or operation thereof, or to enjoin, restrain orinterfere with the commission in the performance of its officialduties. The circuit courts of this state shall always be deemedopen for the trial of suits brought to review the orders anddecisions of the commission as provided in the public servicecommission law and the same shall be tried and determined assuits in equity.
(1960) On second appeal from orders of commission refusing authority to discontinue operation of two local passenger trains where facts were substantially the same as on prior appeal, the prior opinion that order was unreasonable and arbitrary was the law of the case. State ex rel. C.R.I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Public Service Commission (Mo.), 335 S.W.2d 182.
(1962) Order of commission requiring telephone company to construct at a cost of more than $300,000, two exchanges to furnish nontoll dial service to serve area outside its certificated franchise area was unreasonable as unsupported by substantial evidence with respect to company's ability to finance the project. State ex rel. Bolivar Telephone Co. v. Public Service Commission (Mo.), 357 S.W.2d 96.
(1963) County residents who had sufficient interest to institute one proceeding before public service commission to require one telephone company to provide service in area and to intervene in consolidated proceedings by two other contesting telephone companies seeking authority to serve the disputed area, had right to judicial review of commission's final orders in the consolidated proceedings. State ex rel. Summers v. Public Service Commission (A.), 366 S.W.2d 738.
(1973) Held no jurisdiction in circuit court to enjoin utility from collecting rate set by commission when court was not "of the county where the hearing was held or in which the commission has its principal office." State ex rel. Spanish Lake Service, Inc. v. Luten (A.), 500 S.W.2d 46.
(1974) Held that order prohibiting all gas and electric companies from soliciting business by making cash payments and other inducement was an "original order or decision" and this section provides exclusive method of review. Union Electric Co. v. Clark (Mo.), 511 S.W.2d 822.
(2000) Circuit court lacks jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders of Public Service Commission denying motions to dismiss. State ex rel. Riverside Pipeline Co., L.P. v. Public Service Commission of State of Missouri, 26 S.W.3d 396 (Mo.App.W.D.).
(2001) Section does not require notice of petition for review to interested parties and thus violates constitutional right of due process. In re Osage Water Company, 51 S.W.3d 58 (Mo.App.W.D.).
(2005) Section does not authorize the circuit court to issue a writ of prohibition against the Public Service Commission. State v. Director of Manufactured Housing, 168 S.W.3d 680 (Mo.App.W.D.).
386.510. Within thirty days after the application for arehearing is denied, or, if the application is granted, thenwithin thirty days after the rendition of the decision onrehearing, the applicant may apply to the circuit court of thecounty where the hearing was held or in which the commission hasits principal office for a writ of certiorari or review (hereinreferred to as a writ of review) for the purpose of having thereasonableness or lawfulness of the original order or decision orthe order or decision on rehearing inquired into or determined.The writ shall be made returnable not later than thirty daysafter the date of the issuance thereof, and shall direct thecommission to certify its record in the case to the court. Onthe return day the cause shall be heard by the circuit court,unless for a good cause shown the same be continued. No new oradditional evidence may be introduced upon the hearing in thecircuit court but the cause shall be heard by the court withoutthe intervention of a jury on the evidence and exhibitsintroduced before the commission and certified to by it. Thecommission and each party to the action or proceeding before thecommission shall have the right to appear in the reviewproceedings. Upon the hearing the circuit court shall enterjudgment either affirming or setting aside the order of thecommission under review. In case the order is reversed by reasonof the commission failing to receive testimony properlyproffered, the court shall remand the cause to the commission,with instructions to receive the testimony so proffered andrejected, and enter a new order based upon the evidencetheretofore taken, and such as it is directed to receive. Thecourt may, in its discretion, remand any cause which is reversedby it to the commission for further action. No court in thisstate, except the circuit courts to the extent herein specifiedand the supreme court or the court of appeals on appeal, shallhave jurisdiction to review, reverse, correct or annul any orderor decision of the commission or to suspend or delay theexecuting or operation thereof, or to enjoin, restrain orinterfere with the commission in the performance of its officialduties. The circuit courts of this state shall always be deemedopen for the trial of suits brought to review the orders anddecisions of the commission as provided in the public servicecommission law and the same shall be tried and determined assuits in equity.
(1960) On second appeal from orders of commission refusing authority to discontinue operation of two local passenger trains where facts were substantially the same as on prior appeal, the prior opinion that order was unreasonable and arbitrary was the law of the case. State ex rel. C.R.I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Public Service Commission (Mo.), 335 S.W.2d 182.
(1962) Order of commission requiring telephone company to construct at a cost of more than $300,000, two exchanges to furnish nontoll dial service to serve area outside its certificated franchise area was unreasonable as unsupported by substantial evidence with respect to company's ability to finance the project. State ex rel. Bolivar Telephone Co. v. Public Service Commission (Mo.), 357 S.W.2d 96.
(1963) County residents who had sufficient interest to institute one proceeding before public service commission to require one telephone company to provide service in area and to intervene in consolidated proceedings by two other contesting telephone companies seeking authority to serve the disputed area, had right to judicial review of commission's final orders in the consolidated proceedings. State ex rel. Summers v. Public Service Commission (A.), 366 S.W.2d 738.
(1973) Held no jurisdiction in circuit court to enjoin utility from collecting rate set by commission when court was not "of the county where the hearing was held or in which the commission has its principal office." State ex rel. Spanish Lake Service, Inc. v. Luten (A.), 500 S.W.2d 46.
(1974) Held that order prohibiting all gas and electric companies from soliciting business by making cash payments and other inducement was an "original order or decision" and this section provides exclusive method of review. Union Electric Co. v. Clark (Mo.), 511 S.W.2d 822.
(2000) Circuit court lacks jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders of Public Service Commission denying motions to dismiss. State ex rel. Riverside Pipeline Co., L.P. v. Public Service Commission of State of Missouri, 26 S.W.3d 396 (Mo.App.W.D.).
(2001) Section does not require notice of petition for review to interested parties and thus violates constitutional right of due process. In re Osage Water Company, 51 S.W.3d 58 (Mo.App.W.D.).
(2005) Section does not authorize the circuit court to issue a writ of prohibition against the Public Service Commission. State v. Director of Manufactured Housing, 168 S.W.3d 680 (Mo.App.W.D.).
386.510. Within thirty days after the application for arehearing is denied, or, if the application is granted, thenwithin thirty days after the rendition of the decision onrehearing, the applicant may apply to the circuit court of thecounty where the hearing was held or in which the commission hasits principal office for a writ of certiorari or review (hereinreferred to as a writ of review) for the purpose of having thereasonableness or lawfulness of the original order or decision orthe order or decision on rehearing inquired into or determined.The writ shall be made returnable not later than thirty daysafter the date of the issuance thereof, and shall direct thecommission to certify its record in the case to the court. Onthe return day the cause shall be heard by the circuit court,unless for a good cause shown the same be continued. No new oradditional evidence may be introduced upon the hearing in thecircuit court but the cause shall be heard by the court withoutthe intervention of a jury on the evidence and exhibitsintroduced before the commission and certified to by it. Thecommission and each party to the action or proceeding before thecommission shall have the right to appear in the reviewproceedings. Upon the hearing the circuit court shall enterjudgment either affirming or setting aside the order of thecommission under review. In case the order is reversed by reasonof the commission failing to receive testimony properlyproffered, the court shall remand the cause to the commission,with instructions to receive the testimony so proffered andrejected, and enter a new order based upon the evidencetheretofore taken, and such as it is directed to receive. Thecourt may, in its discretion, remand any cause which is reversedby it to the commission for further action. No court in thisstate, except the circuit courts to the extent herein specifiedand the supreme court or the court of appeals on appeal, shallhave jurisdiction to review, reverse, correct or annul any orderor decision of the commission or to suspend or delay theexecuting or operation thereof, or to enjoin, restrain orinterfere with the commission in the performance of its officialduties. The circuit courts of this state shall always be deemedopen for the trial of suits brought to review the orders anddecisions of the commission as provided in the public servicecommission law and the same shall be tried and determined assuits in equity.
(1960) On second appeal from orders of commission refusing authority to discontinue operation of two local passenger trains where facts were substantially the same as on prior appeal, the prior opinion that order was unreasonable and arbitrary was the law of the case. State ex rel. C.R.I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Public Service Commission (Mo.), 335 S.W.2d 182.
(1962) Order of commission requiring telephone company to construct at a cost of more than $300,000, two exchanges to furnish nontoll dial service to serve area outside its certificated franchise area was unreasonable as unsupported by substantial evidence with respect to company's ability to finance the project. State ex rel. Bolivar Telephone Co. v. Public Service Commission (Mo.), 357 S.W.2d 96.
(1963) County residents who had sufficient interest to institute one proceeding before public service commission to require one telephone company to provide service in area and to intervene in consolidated proceedings by two other contesting telephone companies seeking authority to serve the disputed area, had right to judicial review of commission's final orders in the consolidated proceedings. State ex rel. Summers v. Public Service Commission (A.), 366 S.W.2d 738.
(1973) Held no jurisdiction in circuit court to enjoin utility from collecting rate set by commission when court was not "of the county where the hearing was held or in which the commission has its principal office." State ex rel. Spanish Lake Service, Inc. v. Luten (A.), 500 S.W.2d 46.
(1974) Held that order prohibiting all gas and electric companies from soliciting business by making cash payments and other inducement was an "original order or decision" and this section provides exclusive method of review. Union Electric Co. v. Clark (Mo.), 511 S.W.2d 822.
(2000) Circuit court lacks jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders of Public Service Commission denying motions to dismiss. State ex rel. Riverside Pipeline Co., L.P. v. Public Service Commission of State of Missouri, 26 S.W.3d 396 (Mo.App.W.D.).
(2001) Section does not require notice of petition for review to interested parties and thus violates constitutional right of due process. In re Osage Water Company, 51 S.W.3d 58 (Mo.App.W.D.).
(2005) Section does not authorize the circuit court to issue a writ of prohibition against the Public Service Commission. State v. Director of Manufactured Housing, 168 S.W.3d 680 (Mo.App.W.D.).
